June 27, 2008

Winning The War On Terror

The Taliban has regrouped after its initial fall from power in Afghanistan and the pace of its attacks is likely to increase this year, according to a Pentagon report that offers a dim view of progress in the nearly seven-year-old war.

Noting that insurgent violence has climbed, the report said that despite U.S. and coalition efforts to capture and kill key leaders, the Taliban is likely to "maintain or even increase the scope and pace of its terrorist attacks and bombings in 2008."

The Taliban, it said, has "coalesced into a resilient insurgency."

Had the US not invaded a country that posed no threat, had we concentrated our efforts on capturing Osama bin Laden and on demolishing al-Qaeda maybe, just maybe, things in Afghanistan would be different.

Instead we got an illegal war, a administration that lied to the American people in order to get us into that war and (do I really need to end this sentence?) 4,000 American servicemen and women dead.

13 comments:

Anonymous
said...

John K: Hold it a minute here. This is funny. You left wingers said you supported the war in afghanistan. When challenged on the war on terror your safety net was that you supported the troops in the war in afghanistan. Well, I guess not. LMAO Got you lying again. Not hard to do with you lefties.

John K: The left always retreated to the false defense they were not opposed to fighting the war on terror by saying they supported the war in Afghanistan. It was a lie then and a lie now. They left hates America.

Now just a minute here...there's a lot more to the Taliban's "regrouping" than simply blaming our efforts in Iraq.

For one thing, attacks in Afghanistan have soared this year due to a nieve "peace process" being conducted by Pakistan's government, even with thugs such as Baitullah Mehsud, who by his own admission claims he will continue carrying out attacks in Afghanistan, even if he manages to find "peace" with the Pakistani government.

And what's with the phrase "invaded a country that posed no threat to us?" Last time I checked, Slobadan Milosevic posed absolutlely no threat to the United States, but we still took military action against him. Saddam Hussein had every reason to face the same fate. Saddam was a far greater mass murderer and a serious threat to the region seeing as he invaded Iran and Kuwait, committed multiple acts of genocide against both the Kurds and the Shiites, attacked Israel and Saudi Arabia, and provided support to Palestinian terrorist organizations.

But why should we care right? As you said, "he posed no threat to us". So does that mean we should abandon Iraq, forget about the real reasons Afghanistan is falling apart, and simply "fight them over there" in Afghanistan with Obama in the White House, even though anyone with eyes can see that AQ has more effort concentrated on other parts of the world.

Don't forget that European countries have also failed to provide enough combat troops in Afghanistan as well. Do they get a pass? What is really allowing the Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to regroup and prosper is the disunity that has split apart the United States...somewhere in a cave in the NW Frontier Province of Pakistan, Baitullah Mehsud, Mullah Omar, and Ayman Al-Zawahiri are laughing it up in their beards over this sad, pathetic debate in America that makes the unified country we once were nothing but a distant memory.

I'm sorry, John, but could you point out exactly where Dayvoe does what you say he does?

Because otherwise it is fairly obvious that you missed his exceptionally clear point - the war in Iraq has made in more difficult to prosecute military actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

I'm just trying to help by pointing it out to you, John.

As to some other statements...

It's quite absurd to think that political differences and divisions in the United States have a greater effect than actual real-world situations. Essentially, because people are opposed to an unsustainable and ill-conceived Republican foreign policy, the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan.

What?

It's not the bad policy decisions, it's not the people who made those decisions...it's the people who won't "get in line" and blindly support the President, his party and their misguided notions concerning governance and policy, both at home and abroad.

Now, as to this comparison between Saddam and Milosevic...

First, atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein had occurred during the 80's and early 90's, a period when he was openly supported by Western powers like the United States, which had no trouble supplying him with weapons to prosecute his war against Iran. At the very least, Clinton was responding to an on-going, present-day situation. To justify invading Iraq for what Saddam did when he was shaking hands with Donald Rumsfield seems just a bit "after the fact."

Secondly, prior to the invasion of 2003, Saddam had been effectively contained, though much too the suffering of the Iraqi people. At the time of the invasion, Saddam was not waging wars or attacking his neighbors. And no tangible connection between Saddam, a secularist, and Al Qaeda has ever been established. In fact, most of the genocide and mass murders that Saddam committed were on radical Islamic elements that he saw as threats to his power.

Jaywillie, exactly how long did you spend reading some of those rehashed talking points on a far-left hate site?

If we had Saddam Hussein "contained", then why were checks still flowing to the families of suicide bombers in the Palestinian territories? Why was the Fedayeen still terrorizing people to keep them in line with Saddam's brutal ways? Why were people disappearing for making comments against Saddam's regime?

No doubt Saddam most hideous crimes were during the 80's and 90's, that is correct, and 1991 is probably the most shameful act of all, when Papa Bush decided to cut our losses and leave the Shiites who had stood by our side at the hands of the republican guard, where they were ruthlessly massacred. To me, that sickening decision made Bill Clinton's actions in Rwanda seem honorable.

Oh yes, you mention the Saddam and Rumsfeld handshake. Okay, that is despicable, apparently you and I can agree on that. But remember that at that time, the U.S. government was convinced Iran was the greatest threat in the region. Unfortunately, this is not the first time...have you ever seen the photo of FDR sitting with ol' Joe Stalin? We worked side by side with a man who was every bit (if not more) evil as Hitler was in order to defeat him.

The policies of Carter and Reagan to support Saddam Hussein, coupled with Papa Bush's decisions in pulling back from Iraq in 1991 are some of the worst foreign policy decisions ever made.

I would like you to read my last post and find where I ever mentioned Saddam Hussein's "connections" to AQ...I was pointing out to the Palestinian terror orgs, who he very much did support, but you are too eager to barrage me with your regurgitated nonsense to notice that.

Secondly, prior to the invasion of 2003, Saddam had been effectively contained

You know, I hear this argument a lot, and all to often, it comes from the same type of people who believe that Saddam Hussein was a necessary evil because he prevented Iraq into breaking out in "civil war". Well, first off, I believe that is a racist argument, that Arabs and Muslims somehow need dictators in order to be kept from savagely eviscerating each other. Second, Saddam's brutal treatment of Shiites and Kurds, and embrace of a small percentage of the Sunni minority, is what has precisely turned Iraqis against each other today, in addition to AQ's continued use of suicide bombings and other attacks to keep the pressure on Iraq's rival sects. Not that you have pointed this out in your post, Jaywille, but at sometime of another, there is bound to be someone from the so-called "antiwar" movement who embraces this nonsense.

Saddam was a disgrace...he only cared about himself, and it is a good thing that he is gone, even if the world waited to long to get rid of him.

And, C.H., I'm perfectly aware of the horrible acts of Saddam's sons during the latter half of the 90's and until their deaths a few years ago...

But there's hardly much credibility in that argument coming from a conservative mindset that is willing to overlook all manner of intra-country atrocities around the world. To suggest that we had no choice but to act is laughable considering the suffering and oppression that we are willing to overlook and have often sanctioned through our open support of dictators and their brutal regimes.

Perhaps the problem with our foreign policy is that we our too conceited to recognize that people from other parts of the world see through it. They see the double standard of pounding our chests, declaring ourselves the moral beacon of the world, while we arm thugs and support the suppression of civil liberties through support of brutal regimes.

But so long as we are willing to continue the follies of the 20th century, when the Middle East was carved up by colonial powers, the lasting effects of which still emanate to this very day, we will neither understand the Middle East nor achieve any sustainable accord to bring stability to the region.

You simply cannot carve up the world and make it comport to your will. It has never succeeded for very long in all the annals of the world's history.

C.H., you're much more effective when you post as John K. In both cases, your posts make no sense at all -- are barely coherent in fact. But as John K., you are much funnier and more obviously making fun of the Wingnuts.

Actually Shitrock, I think it is funniest of all when YOU post as John K. I really do believe he is your split-personality, and you use him to argue with yourself when there is no one around to take your abuse or listen to your nonsense.